ass backward canadian law

[gala]

Below I've quoted from the Canadian Criminal code, and it appears to say that anal intercourse is a crime in Canada if there are more than two people present--EVEN if the anal sex itself is between husband and wife. I didn't think we still had ass-backwards laws like this on our books, but I guess we do.


159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between

(a) husband and wife, or

(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,

both of whom consent to the act.

Idem

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),

(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and

(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act

(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or

(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.

 

[train]

(i) ............ and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
[/B]

Overheard - female testifying following arrests at a swingers party .


"...........But your Honour I'm not guilty under subsection 3 (b) (i) .................he told me it would be really good ! "

 

[gramage]

hell in the US technically blow jobs are illegal in several states (buggery is all not penis vagina sex), it's not like these laws are enforced.

 

[500miles]

Enforcement's not the Issue

The lack of consistent enforcement is not the issue. The fact that these laws are still on the books allows discretionary enforcement -- if you happen to be in an unpopular group in a particular region of the U.S., i.e., gays in the Bible Belt, then the police can bust down in your door because your neighbor reported seeing two men entering a residence together. Don't laugh, it recently happened in Texas.

In some places, it's illegal to drink from a public water fountain or kiss in public. No matter how absurd you think the laws are, they are on the books. That's the unfortunate thing people don't get about laws. Once they are on the books, they rarely, if ever, come off the books.

 

[mr. x]

i think if you read this carefully you will discover that it is meant to cover cases of non-consensual anal sex - that is - effectively it is a rape-type law... with exceptions for married people, consenting adults etc.

what it also means is that even if you have consensual anal sex with someone under 18, you can be charged.

without it, male prisoners would be gang-raped in prison... oh, wait, that happens but never gets enforced... so much for this law being much use!

 

[gala]

Mr. X:

I would agree with you if it weren't for the additional langauge requiring the anal intercourse to be "in private". By itself "in private" might not be such a bad thing, but the act goes on to declare that something is NOT in private if there are more than two people present.

That has nothing to do with consent--that criminilizes anal sex in any kind of threesome or group situation.

You could drop the "in private" requirement and the act would still do a good job of ensuring consent.

 

[mr. x]

on an even closer reading its true that a charge could be laid in circumstances such as if you are doing it as part of a threesome, even at home. but i think that over the last 20 years people are a little less uptight over threesomes and group sex than when the law was changed.

when it passed through parliament, i doubt that anyone got up to protest that swingers might be convicted. often when the law is vague or open to abuses the politicians will argue that the police/courts will be wise enough not to apply it in such cases - that discretion will be used. i don't buy it myself, but, it is difficult to word things succinctly and not be able to think of at least one case where the law could be oppen to a loophole, or abused by LE.

i think the intent was mainly to give the courts ways of keeping homosexual behaviour out of semi-public places, such as bathhouses and such, as well as having something to use against guys having gay sex with teenagers, as well as issues of force etc. - LE just has to prove that the act was taking place, without issues of whether or not it was indecent or other people could actually see it.

my understanding is that our criminal code is a bit of a mess - there are a wide variety of provisons that have not been updated, and are rarely even considered for enforcement - what happens is that every few years they will add new sections on stalking, or streetwalkers or whatever it is that is causing public concern, or if there is a successful court challenge that requires amendments to the law - but the rest of the criminal code goes without updating.

 

[mandrill]

It's rarely enforced. Occasionally, if the cops bust a bath-house or swingers' club - if they ever do those things anymore - they trot the hoary old law out. But for the most part, it's just ignored.